UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i just made that my signature because it is such awesome sauce.
i hear shtetls worked out real well for the jews
The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
i hear shtetls worked out real well for the jews
I know what it is, I have actually stood on the grounds where this occurred. I lived within miles of it. The people who did that violated the law, and should of been punished. Please, explain how civil rights would of prevented this already illegal and horrible act?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Crazy shit I see on this site..WTF...i just made that my signature because it is such awesome sauce.
i hear shtetls worked out real well for the jews
londonfog
Well-Known Member
no seriously go read a book..you stupid
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i have some other suggestions about what he might go do.
Right, no response how civil rights laws would of prevented this. Good choice, since the obvious answer is "It could not have, there is no possibly way you could of prevented this except by the Government enforcing the laws already in place and protecting the citizens living in Rosewood from being attacked, and/or punishing the people involved if it was unable to prevent it"
The civil rights law should of went something like
"All people have the same rights as granted by the Constitution. 'People' in the constitution is hereby understood to include all races of humanoids, as well as all sexes. The government shall not treat people differently for any reason"
Why should there be special laws for harming or killing certain individuals? Isn't the laws that punish me for beating your ass sufficient to punish me if I beat up a gay person? Why should someone who runs me over out of anger get less punishment than someone who runs a black man over for being black?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
First the answer I gave address why blacks didn't really go out and try to buy land, start own community..etc etc..If you can't follow a simple reply maybe should not type so much ..
WRONG!!! No Where in the constitution is the power to interpret the constitution given to SCOTUS. Your argument contains no facts either.
FAIL!
NoDrama, what is the purpose of the Supreme Court?
Seriously, if you have no idea what you are talking about, don't bother typing.
Article 3 of the Constitution. Read it before replying with more falsifications.
I'm shocked about how little some folks know about the Constitution, especially in a political forum.
Here's a link: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Please read this document prior to making false claims and calling me a liar. I do not appreciate it!
Here's a link: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Please read this document prior to making false claims and calling me a liar. I do not appreciate it!
LOL, you ever read it? ( http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii ) No where is that power enumerated, no where. This wasn't even an issue until Jefferson was President.
The SCOTUS is to be the 3rd check in the system of checks and balances. A final say when it came to issues of Citizen vs other state, state vs state, or state vs federal. To ensure laws were faithful to the tenets of the Constitution.
The Federalist papers were written so people could correctly interpret the Constitution, the interpretation never changes because the CFTUS is NOT a living document.
I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers. . . . What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient
phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. -James Madison
On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.-Tom Jefferson
The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.
(Works, "Lectures on Law Delivered in the College of Phila.; Introductory Lecture: Of the Study of the Law in the United States.")
The interpretation of the Constitution does not change with the times, or by the person whom is reading it. The only correct interpretation of the Constitution, is by those who wrote it.
To say that the thoughts and intentions of the men who drafted the Constitution take second place to the way WE "interpret" the Constitution is to change our government from one of "laws, not of men" to one of silly putty based on contemporary views of political correctness.
Your false falsifications have been dashed upon the rocks of fact and reason.
I know, its completely unbelievable how stupid some people really are.
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Notice how there is no function of constitutional interpretational powers given to the SCOTUS? Did you notice that part?
PS I didn't call you a Liar, I called you wrong, of which you are of course.
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Notice how there is no function of constitutional interpretational powers given to the SCOTUS? Did you notice that part?
PS I didn't call you a Liar, I called you wrong, of which you are of course.
How does a court make a ruling on a law without interpreting a law?
Weren't the Federalist Papers written to convince states to ratify the Constitution? That means that the Federalist Papers are not law, they are a sales pitch IMHO.
Instead of telling me I'm wrong and quoting sales pitches, please educate me on how I am wrong as I am open to correction whenever the opportunity arises.
Weren't the Federalist Papers written to convince states to ratify the Constitution? That means that the Federalist Papers are not law, they are a sales pitch IMHO.
Instead of telling me I'm wrong and quoting sales pitches, please educate me on how I am wrong as I am open to correction whenever the opportunity arises.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Anyone can interpret the Constitution; however, the courts determine whether laws, executive orders, treaties and policies are in keeping with the principles of the Constitution, and have the ability to nullify and render unenforceable any that are not. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on Constitutional law. soooooo that actually would mean Girweed right
So in order for him to be right, it must be enumerated in the Constitution, so please london, if you could, Please show us exactly where in the Constitution this power is enumerated. Thanks.
I can't believe we are discussing the role of the Supreme Court.
Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court — once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts of a particular case.--http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/judicial-branch
What role does a court play if not to interpret laws?
Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court — once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts of a particular case.--http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/judicial-branch
What role does a court play if not to interpret laws?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Hey you can play on words all you want but its been showed to you..You go find a law professor and have him explain Article III Section one and two...you can't make a ruling if you don't interpret the law...so you keep looking for that magic word